What do we really know about Jesus?

[steve_bank]

If Paul said so then it must be the truth. Paul said there were numerous Christians?

 

[Hermit]

Maybe it's just me, but I would think that whether he even existed or not would be an important part of any answer to the question
. . . . . . . What do we really know about Jesus?

You obviously skipped past my post describing what I think about Jesu existence as well as what we know about him.

And you did misread Tharmas' post.

 

[steve_bank]

I have it on good authority Jesus was gay. Why not? We know modern Christians who preach the loudest often can be boinking somebody in the shadows. Preacher fornicators telling us fornication is a sin.

 

[Politesse]

Jesus never said anything against homosexuals.

Actually he was rather openly critical of heterosexuality, accusing men of hypocrisy for demanding purity of women while willfully engaging in sexual sins themselves.

 

[Swammerdami]

Maybe it's just me, but I would think that whether he even existed or not would be an important part of any answer to the question
. . . . . . . What do we really know about Jesus?

You obviously skipped past my post describing what I think about Jesu existence as well as what we know about him.

Is this a joke? I'm not interested in a repetition of your opinion on that anyway.
I asked specifically what comment, if any, you might deign to offer on my comment which you snipped when you quoted me.

 

[steve_bank]

Jesus never said anything against homosexuals.

Actually he was rather openly critical of heterosexuality, accusing men of hypocrisy for demanding purity of women while willfully engaging in sexual sins themselves.

Assuming Jesus was a Jewish rabbai as he was refereed to in the gospels who spoke in temple he wold be opposed to any libertine pagan sex.

In the gospels he lumped fornication with serious crimes. If you divorce and remarry you are guilty of fornication, a serious crime in the day.

Jesus invoked the Jewish prophets and Mosaic Law which goes back to Leviticus and the death penalty for homosexuality.

Jesus of the gospels was not a social activist. Bear your suffering and be with me in heaven.

If a gay person wants to be Christian that is a personal choice. Modern liberal Christianity has evolved to include gays. Jewish Israel led the USA in gay rights and marriage.

Culture evolves. However if you are a bible based Evangelical or Catholic you can't be Christian and gay. The RCC softened its stance on gays but it is still considered wrong.

I was lteng to a PBS show on religion. A Jewish rabbi was asked whether h believed god existed or not. The rabbi responded by saying it does not matter.

Whether Jesus was for or against gays is irrelevant. What matters is the mythology you choose for community.

A Christian rationalization on diet is that Jesus ended the old Mosaic covenant with god and established a new covenant including gentiles, the New Testament. The rules in Leviticus no longer apply, but they pick and choose by selectively enforcing the rule against gays.

 

[Politesse]

Jesus invoked the Jewish prophets and Mosaic Law which goes back to Leviticus and the death penalty for homosexuality.

You may speculate as much as you like, but we have no actual record of his speaking against homosexuality. And the only two stories we possess concerning Jesus and the death penalty is the time (as is written that) he prevented a lawfully organised mob from stoning to death a woman accused of adultery, and the time he himself narrowly avoided a (once again, lawfully organized) mob that he himself had provoked by teaching radical messages at synagogue. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of religion-based executions, those stories.

And if there's no record, you are correct to identify your conclusions as a mythical rather than historical matter.

 

[steve_bank]

To be clear, I am not arguing against gay rights or gay Christians. Pete Buttigieg is Christian.

Given the context of the Jewish culture and scripture on the day I doubt the Jesus character would approve of gay relationships. To me he was calling Jews back to traditional ways.

There are only a handful of direct quotes attributed to Jesus. He did not say anything about abortion either.

The sparsity of definitive morality allows people to make Jesus into their own image. In the 60s when I was in a black neighbor's home I saw an image of a Black Jesus on the wall, I was too young to see the significance. The American white image is porcelain white skin, blue eyes, and blonde hair.

The god of Jesus was the vengeful Yaweh who severely punishes non conformity. The modern Christian liberal god is entirely different. God loves everyone equally.

The gospel Jesus is the model for modern ultra conservative Evangelicals.

No doubt there were Jewish gays in the day. History shows it has always been part of humanity. Given the Leviticus prohibition of homosexuality it always existed in Jewish culture.

From the Oxford commentary on Paul's statement about sexuality. The Jews were obsessed with ritual cleanliness. Jews considered libertine Pagan sex as a sort of corruption or weakening of the spirit. No self restraint.

On sex Paul said you should be celibate, if you can't then marry.

For me it is becoming more clear that we have no dea of the source of sayings attributed to Jesus.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Reply to Unknown Soldier, #2

What do we really know about Jesus?

I.e., what do we know for sure? (about that historical person 2000 years ago)

No, I'm not asking nor assuming that Jesus was a historical person.

Then the question is: What do we know for sure about that ALLEGED historical person 2000 years ago? So, add "alleged" or "reported" historical person. You could ask the same about ANY historical person people assume existed, like George Washington or Shakespeare or Charlemagne or Gregory the Great or Rabbi Hillel or Pompey the Great or Socrates or Alexander the Great or Confucius or King Arthur or Homer or Gilgamesh, etc. Such a question can be asked about any historical figure, and you can always suppose that such a person never existed at all but is totally fiction. Such a question is not at all peculiar to the "Jesus" person. There's no more reason to question his existence than the existence of hundreds of others in the history books, even thousands or millions.

I'm asking what we know about the figure Jesus who appears in the New Testament.

But the same question can be asked about all the other thousands of historical figures appearing in the respective literature which reports them. All of them appear in some literature or other. And in all cases there is a certain amount of fiction mixed in with the fact, and we can always wonder how much of it we really know and how much is not really known because it's not really true.

So the question "What do we really know about Jesus?" has to mean (if it makes any sense): What part of the reported Jesus (in the NT) is fact and what part is fiction? And, as with all the other historical figures, we can assume some of it is fact and some is fiction. Though you can always toss the whole thing out and say that no writings from the past can be believed and that all reported history is a massive hoax. But in that case, why ask the question? Why not just say we know ZERO history at all about anyone who ever existed? or ask why we should believe that any reported historical figure really existed?

We know a lot of facts, about many historical figures, but 90% of it is conjecture, or guesswork.

How can a fact be conjecture?

Because it's true even though we don't know with absolute certainty that it's true. If a belief is true, then it's a fact, as well as a belief. Like a child believes the earth is round, and yet the child has never proved it, or seen the evidence for it. Just as we believe billions of historical facts which we personally have never proved but have received from others who "proved" it.

And isn't it "possible" that the earth really is flat, despite the evidence which can be produced showing that it's round? The only answer has to be that when the evidence becomes so great, beyond a certain level of repetition and further verification, we finally say that it's a certainty, because the probability is so high. Like 99.99999999% probable.

There is no scientific objective provable point at which a "conjecture" becomes a proved fact known with 100% Absolute Certainty.

And the same is true of Jesus, like all historical figures, for whom we must rely on guesswork. Some of it is good guesswork, but much is dubious. And any history book on your shelf, about ANY historical figure 1000-2000 years ago, probably contains some fiction presented as fact -- a lot of fiction in some cases.

That's the "dirty little secret" about history. It's what we are told by those who think they know it, but as you say it's largely conjecture.

Yes, but much of it is good conjecture, or good guesswork, and we can question any of it, for ALL historical facts, including the historical Jesus for whom there is good guesswork as well as bad guesswork, and asking what we really know about him has to mean what part of the guesswork is good guesswork, credible fact, vs. the bad guesswork and the popular fiction we encounter with all historical figures.

And what might be peculiar in the Jesus case, compared to others, is that we have so much (not little, but much) reported about him, including conflicting reports, that the search for the facts is more difficult and more contentious than for most of the historical characters for whom there is less reported and less evidence.

But we know a little about the historical Jesus for sure: He shows up in history, first, at the north end of the Sea of Galilee, near the town of Capernaum, some time around 30 AD, and he attracted attention from several people, maybe dozens, and became recognized as important for some reason which the experts cannot agree on; he traveled to Jerusalem, accompanied by some Galileans, came into conflict of some kind, was arrested and put to death by order of Pontius Pilate.

How do you know any of this?

The same as our knowledge of ANY (ancient) historical figures: from the written accounts which have survived down to us, from the ancient writers. Without these writings we know nothing of the historical persons we assume existed. From those writings we can figure out some of the facts. Just because the ancient writings are not 100% accurate in all that they report does not mean we can't believe any of their content. From the writings we have, we can be sure of the above facts about Jesus, just as we have knowledge of ANY historical persons from the past.

All we know is that the stories in the New Testament portray Jesus that way.

Yes, the same as for ALL historical persons we believe existed, who are portrayed in the literature written about them. The historical figures we believe existed are not all portrayed the same in all the sources we have about them, and some of the portrayal is probably inaccurate. But we accept these portrayals as mostly accurate, or generally accurate or close enough to give us a good idea, and we use our intelligence to question all the sources and make good guesses as to the fact vs. fiction, for ALL of them, including for the Jesus character 2000 years ago, who is just one more historical person, but maybe is a more difficult case to deal with.

But for ALL of them, easy and difficult, we rely on the "stories" about them in the literature which survives to us from the ancient writers.

Reading stories only grants you knowledge about what the stories say not what facts are in those stories.

However you want to put it, it's the same for ALL our knowledge of history, not just the historical Jesus. Any "facts" we have about Julius Caesar or anyone else, great and small, comes from the "stories" we have about them (including the "stories" written by someone who claimed to be the person himself, which has never been 100% verified). Without those "stories" originating from someone who presumably wrote them there are no "facts" or "knowledge" about any of them. No one has ever proved scientifically with 100% certainty where all these "stories" came from, i.e., the alleged written accounts from alleged historians and others which our history classes and books claim existed.

So, just because it comes from "stories" doesn't mean it didn't really happen.

We know that much for sure. And we can figure out much more than this, but speculation increases the farther we pursue the answers.

I know for sure that everything you just claimed about Jesus is baloney. See that? What can be asserted without evidence can be denied without evidence.

Yes, just as you can say everything taught in a history class or history book is BALONEY. Because the ancient writings are not really "evidence" at all, because there is no evidence for anything that ever happened. Likewise you can say the moon landing is "baloney" or climate change is "baloney" -- You can reject all sources for our knowledge of what happened.

But in general we do believe the published accounts (where 98% of them agree), using them as our EVIDENCE for what happened, even though ALL that evidence is questionable and can be scrutinized to distinguish the fact from fiction. And the distant past events are more problematic. Just because it's not PERFECT in reporting the facts to us does not mean it isn't really evidence. All the problems with separating fact from fiction which we encounter with the NT writings are also encountered with the other literature, the history writings and other sources from which we determine history.

One Bible scholar will tell you we know A about Jesus, and another will tell you we know not A.

Same as with virtually ALL historical figures. The experts disagree on many details for any historical figure of any importance.

Then some of them are wrong, and we can't tell which ones are wrong and which of them are right.

Yes we can, in many or most cases. And in cases where we cannot, it's OK for different readers to draw different conclusions. Obviously in many cases we cannot tell for sure which source is correct. But it's OK to guess, and some guesses are good guesses.

A good example is the disharmony between Josephus and the Gospel of Mark about the death of John the Baptizer. Josephus confirms that John was beheaded by Herod Antipas, so that's a historical fact. But Mark's story that John's head was requested by the girl who did a dance, and Herod complied, with regret, does not harmonize with Josephus and is probably fiction. We can choose the Josephus account as more likely the truth, about that scene of John's head being presented to her "on a platter" -- probably fiction.

There are many cases where 2 sources conflict and we can make a good judgment which is more likely correct.

They have the same evidence to arrive at these contradictory conclusions. Something's not right here.

No, it's perfectly normal. For any historical figure centuries ago there are contradictory conclusions derived from the same evidence. Nothing's wrong here. Though you could argue that the case of Jesus is more problematic than normal.

You equivocated on my saying something is not right by responding that "it's perfectly normal." Is it normal to get facts wrong? I suppose it is, but if you do normally get facts wrong, then don't go around telling people what you know. To do so is misleading.

What is "misleading" about telling people

. . . we know a little about the historical Jesus for sure: He shows up in history, first, at the north end of the Sea of Galilee, near the town of Capernaum, some time around 30 AD, and he attracted attention from several people, maybe dozens, and became recognized as important for some reason which the experts cannot agree on; he traveled to Jerusalem, accompanied by some Galileans, came into conflict of some kind, was arrested and put to death by order of Pontius Pilate.

???? Don't we know that much for sure?
The above is not "misleading" -- we do know this, based on the written evidence from the past, just as we know facts about hundreds or thousands or even millions of historical persons we learn about in history books and history classes.

The above facts about Jesus are taught in history classes, just as facts are taught about Socrates and Siddhartha Buddha and Confucius and even doubtful figures like Zoroaster. Even the most doubtful figures are presented -- He was a "Persian" -- and of course some of it is more doubtful. Usually the difficulty of establishing some of these persons is admitted, in the history classes and books. But when the most doubtful elements are removed, and the bare essential facts are presented, we can have a high degree of certainty that it is fact and not fiction.

You can always make a mystery out of an ancient historical figure around whom some legend evolved. But some essential facts can be established, such as the fact that Jesus appears in history in the region around the Sea of Galilee, near Capernaum, and that he traveled to Jerusalem and was crucified. Those are basic facts, like all the other facts of history for which there is abundant evidence.

And then, to these definite facts there are added many more claims that are doubtful. With some effort we can separate these into the fact vs. fiction categories.

What's the problem with trying to know Jesus? To answer this question, it's important to know the evidence for Jesus. All we have is a set of documents that originated with the early Christian sect.

We don't know the origin of the documents. It's not "the early Christian sect," because there were many early Christian communities, not just one, and these different sects or communities were not a monolithic cohesive community. The documents are from different sources, different authors, not in contact with each other, separated by hundreds (maybe 1000+) miles and by years/decades.

You're splitting hairs here. While I'm well aware of the differing factions within the emerging Christian sect, there's nothing wrong with calling it a sect.

But there's something erroneous about calling it "the early Christian sect" -- THE early Christian sect. It was not one single monolithic sect, as that phrase implies. The documents came from different places and times unconnected with each other. And even though Matthew and Luke used Mark, they had many other sources also, unknown to Mark, and there is no apparent collaboration among these writers.

This is a LARGE "set of documents" -- not a small source or small group of writings. These are more sources, for the historical Jesus, than we have for virtually any other ancient historical figure, so the phrase "All we have is a set of documents" is an odd description of them, being much larger than normal for ancient historical persons we believe existed. It is a lot that we have for determining what the facts are, by comparison to other documented historical persons.

These documents are comprised of stories and testimonies about a figure named Jesus. Scholars study these documents and come to their own often contradictory conclusions. For example, while most scholars now say Jesus was born in Nazareth, some still maintain he was born in Bethlehem.

The latter are only those who believe the writings are infallible and contain no errors. Except for this they would not claim he was born in Bethlehem. They are dependent on the divine inspiration of the documents as their authority, or as the only basis for the Bethlehem story.

That's right! The conclusions Bible scholars come to are based on their theological predispositions rather than any reliable methodology that can be tested for accuracy.

No, not ALL their conclusions. Some, like the Bethlehem birth, are not reliable. But others are reliable, based on good criticism and analysis of the writings.

It's not only blind reliance on the writings that guides one to the best conclusions, but good judgments on the thinking of the authors, and also the confirmation of one source toward another. E.g., for the Bethlehem story we have only 2 sources, not 4. 3 or 4 sources is better than only 2. And in John (7:40-43) it's clear that the author believed Jesus was not born in Bethlehem. So on this point we have 2 sources saying it and one contradicting it. (Thus 1 + 1 - 1 = net only one source for the Bethlehem story.) And when we add that there was prophecy-legend predicting Bethlehem as the birthplace for the "Messiah," this provides the explanation how it is that Lk and Mt both agreed on the Bethlehem location. Not fact but anticipation that this would be the birthplace, to satisfy the ancient prophecy.

So the conclusions of Bible scholars are partly based on good methodology and criticism but also on tradition and compliance with accepted doctrine. Today most Bible scholars reject the Bethlehem tradition, but on many points there is both good methodology/criticism and the bad which still relies on the ancient legends, or their theological predispositions.

For all the ancient historical facts, and historical characters, the experts make mistakes and rely partly on their ideological predispositions rather than good criticism and analysis of the evidence. The case of the historical Jesus is just one more example where at some points the methodology is flawed, but at other points it's reliable and we can believe the facts they claim. We have to take each one separately.

And those scholars who say he was born in Nazareth do not say they know this for sure. They just think this is the best guess. What we "really know" about Jesus does not include where he was born.

A minor detail! LOL

For many historical figures the place of birth is unknown. Even when a birthplace is claimed, there's doubt how accurate the claim is. The birthplace is often one "minor detail" among many which remain doubtful.

We don't even know that he was raised in Nazareth. Nothing in the accounts says anything about his childhood in Nazareth. It's reasonable to believe that he grew up in Nazareth, because Mark says so, but there's also reason to doubt this. It goes in the "we-don't-know" category.

Why not just doubt all of it?

Sure, why not just doubt all of history, or all about any ancient historical figure? In fact we do "doubt" most of it, in the sense that it's not 99% probable, but maybe only 90% or 80% or 70% probable.

But it's reasonable to believe some which is confirmed by multiple sources, such as where Jesus appears in history, that he accumulated "disciples" from Galilee who traveled with him to Jerusalem. These basic facts are more definite than anything known about his childhood, for which we have virtually no sources. Only Luke says anything about it, and this has the hallmarks of legend more than fact. We can say that there is some limited evidence that his childhood was in Nazareth. Many would say it's a good guess, based on that evidence. So maybe it's more than only 10% or 20% probable. (Obviously these are not precise percentages, but only rough estimates.)

But what "we really know" about Jesus, based on all the evidence, is that as an adult he was at that Galilee location where he interacted with some Galileans who traveled with him to Jerusalem. Not that he grew up in Nazareth, which might be based on faulty guesswork, and for which there are no narrative accounts describing anything from his childhood there.


(this Wall of Text to be continued)

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

What do we really know about Jesus?

(continued from previous Wall of Text -- reply to Unknown Soldier, #26, March 27)

There's nothing I know of in the Gospel stories that's any more credible than Mark's saying Jesus grew up in Nazareth.

I just told you what's more credible, i.e., that he resided near the town of Capernaum as an adult, about which there are narrative accounts in all 4 Gospels. Mark narrates nothing about the childhood of Jesus at Nazareth.

Also, it's certain that Jesus was arrested one night and was crucified the next day. All 4 accounts plus the epistles of Paul say this, even narrating what happened. So it's a virtual certainty that this happened, based on all the evidence, from differing sources.

What's reported in differing sources, even containing minor discrepancies, is highly valuable evidence for what happened. The minor discrepancies can be downplayed as containing error, but what they all agree on is probably what really happened and what we can know for sure. And then to this we can add the guesswork.

Additional certainties are that his time was concurrent with the reign of Tiberius and the terms of Governor Pontius Pilate and Tetrarch Herod Antipas. Those are obviously more certain than the claim of where he grew up.

We can't dismiss the "Jesus of Nazareth" rhetoric as fiction, but the narrative accounts of his interaction with the fishermen near Capernaum is much stronger evidence of where he was than anything about where he spent his childhood.

It is my opinion that without supporting corroborative evidence, documents are very weak evidence, and . . .

But these documents, or 5 sources, are corroborative evidence. Each one is a source, and they corroborate each other on a few points. Also they are corroborated on some related points from non-biblical documents.

We don't really know what corroborates what in the New Testament because we don't know who was copying whom.

We don't know that about any historical figure. All of them are known to us from writings which were copied and copied. And the original writer obviously got information from others earlier, directly or indirectly, either copying in writing or repeating orally what others said who were more directly in contact with the actual events. Just because "we don't know who was copying whom" or who was repeating someone else's oral report doesn't mean we don't have corroboration.

More corroboration = more cases of the same claim being repeated in additional sources. So the miracle healing acts of Jesus are corroborated over and over, in the written accounts, just as other historical facts are corroborated because they are repeated in further sources. Regardless "who was copying whom" in the various sources we rely on. Not knowing who copied whom does not negate the evidence which corroborates much of the historical facts.

It seems likely to me that what the writers of the New Testament agree on results from the beliefs held in common among them.

Yes, beliefs about historical facts, like Caesar Augustus was emperor or Tiberius was emperor and Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea and Herod Antipas was Tetrarch of Galilee. And that Jesus or John the Baptizer were at certain locations. These beliefs held in common are the facts we have, from all the sources. Where they agree on these facts, then we have corroboration and facts, or good evidence for the facts. Whereas on the points where they contradict each other we cannot be sure of the facts.

Or, where the Synoptic Gospels contradict John on some points, we can usually assume that they are correct and John is in error.

In other words, it's not common knowledge that Jesus was crucified, for instance, but common belief.

It's both.

You could say about ALL history knowledge that it's not knowledge at all, but only points of agreement between the sources, or what they all believed -- it's not really knowledge, or not known, that Alexander conquered most of the Eastern Mediterranean, because it's only reported in all the sources and so is only "common belief" among those writers. But in general we accept what is reported in all the sources and consider it common knowledge or fact. The alternative mindset, that there are no facts or knowledge, usually goes into the nutcase category.

But we know a little: He resided at that Galilean location for a period, he attracted some kind of attention, acquiring a "following" or a group of Galileans who took an interest in him, they traveled with him to Jerusalem where he was arrested and condemned to death. That much we know for sure, corroborated and confirmed by all the evidence.

Again, you don't know any of this.

We know it just as we know most/all other historical facts. From the existing evidence. Again, to say we know nothing at all, no historical facts, goes into the nutcase category.

It's just parts of written stories that look darned unlikely to be true.

We can talk about the "unlikely" parts too. There's the doubtful part also in addition to what "we really know" for sure. But to say it's "darned unlikely" that anyone ever was in Galilee or could have been crucified goes into the super-nutcase category.

The topic is "What do we really know about Jesus?" We do know the above facts, just as we know millions (billions?) of historical facts, taught in schools, in history books, confirmed by all the evidence.

And it's good to start with what we know for sure about the historical Jesus, and then from there look for an explanation. Because there's more to figure out than only the basic known facts. But shouldn't there be some agreement to start out with a few basic facts, biographical, indicated by all the evidence, and then search for answers, i.e., for additional facts which are less certain? What's wrong with that? Most of "history" is about going beyond the absolute certain facts, 99.9999% probable, and deducing additional facts which are not so certain.

. . . and these contradictory conclusions should come as no surprise being based on documents alone.

What's wrong with "documents alone"?

Anything can be written in a document. Documents sit still for lies as readily as they do for facts.

But they are not mostly lies, but factual reports about what happened. In fact most of the errors are not really "lies" but mistakes or exaggerations, as with most/all historical documents we rely on for history. We have to separate the fact from fiction (or "lies" if you want to get emotional about it -- call it "lies" if you get an orgasm from using that word), but whatever you call it, it's a mixture of fact and fiction, for ALL the ancient sources, and we can do the job of separating the two. And the title "What do we really know about Jesus?" admonishes us to do that work of separating fact from fiction, rather than go off the deep end, in a rage, condemning all of it as a pack of "lies" fit only to be consigned to the flames.

What else do we have to tell us who an ancient historical figure was, other than the documents written at the time, reporting to us what happened? We must rely on the "documents alone" for virtually every ancient historical figure. These documents might give us difficulty, but these are all we have, and there are many cases of historical characters and events about which there are problems and unanswered questions.

So we rely on what documents we have and try to piece together a picture of what happened. That's all we can do for virtually any historical figure or event we're trying to reconstruct for our present knowledge. We can determine historical facts about Jesus just as we can for other historical figures. That our source is "documents alone" says nothing peculiar to this case. Maybe the Jesus case is unique, but not because it's "based on documents alone."

Your logical fallacy here is your claiming that since the evidence for other figures is weak too, then we should go ahead and accept the weak evidence for Jesus.

Whether you call it "weak" or some other emotion-based term, it's the source we rely on for determining the ancient events. We should accept it for guidance if we assume that the ancient events did happen and we want to learn about those events. Even though in many cases there is doubt about what happened, we can still accept the more probable events as fact. That the evidence is "weak" rather than 100% perfect does not prevent us from putting some reliance on it and using it critically in order to find the facts.

No matter how weak the evidence might be for other figures, it doesn't make the evidence for Jesus any less weak.

No, it puts the evidence for Jesus in the same category, equal with other historical evidence, as reliable for determining what the truth is, or determining the historical facts, but also subject to the same criticism as other evidence, and thus fallible and containing error along with the fact.

Which means we cannot arbitrarily select out this one person to be removed from history because of some prejudice we have against him, or against someone who wants to include him with all the others. We should let the evidence determine who existed and who did not, or what they did, and not our prejudice about what should or should not have happened, or who should or should not have existed.

Many Jesus historicists make what I call the "smellier skunk fallacy." If you tell me my skunk stinks, and I respond saying that other skunks are as smelly or smellier than my skunk, then it will do me no good. No matter how much other skunks reek, my skunk still smells! In the same way pointing out that the evidence for other figures is as weak or weaker than the evidence for Jesus doesn't make the evidence for Jesus any better.

No, it makes the evidence for Jesus the same as the other evidence, or submits this evidence to the same standards as all the other evidence. So, to include Jesus as part of history and claim he did something back then is to give respect to ALL the evidence, whereas to select him out as different and somehow not a part of history is to arbitrarily exclude some of the evidence, from prejudice, setting a double-standard in this case, because we don't like what this evidence is saying, and so it must be covered up or suppressed, because it's dangerous or our ideology is offended by it.

So, if you fear what this evidence tells us, and you want to flee from it or suppress it, then it makes sense that you'd want to exclude it and pretend that it's inferior to other evidence and must be judged by a different standard, or be excluded and kept from people for their own good because maybe it's dangerous for them and would undermine them or corrupt them somehow, as you see it.

Most Bible scholars won't avow that the evidence for Jesus is this weak.

How weak is "this weak"? All the scholars know that there are unanswered questions. There's much more we don't know than what we know. And this is true for many historical figures.

By "weak" I mean it's not sensible to conclude that we know anything about Jesus based on what evidence we have.

Why is it not sensible? "what evidence we have" is more than we have for most ancient historical characters which we believe (or know) existed. You've said nothing about "what evidence we have" which excludes us from knowing something about him just as we know something about millions of other historical figures we know existed.

But if "weak" just means the evidence is not perfect, then why is it not still sensible to conclude facts about him, from this evidence which is not 100% perfect evidence? which is the same kind of evidence we use to determine all the other facts of history? and the other historical figures we assume existed? Why is it not "sensible" to believe these facts of history, even though there is always some doubt and the evidence is "weak"? or whatever other less-than-perfect characterization you ascribe to the evidence? What's wrong with having knowledge and science and facts which come from evidence that is less than absolute perfect?

If they did admit it, then their . . .

They do admit it. All the scholars know that there are difficulties explaining what we know or don't know about the historical Jesus. There is STRONG evidence, but only for a little of it. Most beliefs about Jesus are based on weak evidence, not strong evidence. But we know at least some facts for which there is strong evidence. And for the rest there is plenty of room for reasonable belief and guesswork and conjecture -- much that can be believed based on limited evidence, just as for most of our historical facts, taught in history books and classes, and containing much fiction mixed in with the fact. I.e., much based more on belief than proved verified corroborated fact. Reasonable belief, based on limited evidence, comprises a huge percentage of what we call "history."

There is no "strong" evidence for Jesus I've ever seen.

Five 1st-century sources are very strong evidence, for ancient history events. And there are the brief quotes in Josephus and Tacitus and Suetonius, which contribute to the total evidence. We don't have that for most of our ancient historical persons or facts. ---- For a few we have "strong" evidence, i.e., very conspicuous figures who are famous because they were very powerful "leaders" who imposed themselves onto millions of subjects. But for most (ancient) historical persons we have much less evidence than for the historical Jesus.

If you mean you've never seen "strong" evidence for any historical figure, then OK. But the evidence we have is "strong" enough to be able to draw some conclusions about them, despite the doubtful element in many cases.

Why not believe that Merlin created Stonehenge on your kind of evidence?

What are the sources? Are there writings from the time Stonehenge was built which say Merlin created it? If there's any such evidence, then we should not arbitrarily exclude it, but consider it along with all the other evidence. Why don't you stop being silly and offer a serious example.

There was a real Merlin all right--he just didn't have magical powers and commissioned the construction of Stonehenge with a local contractor!

This is really the best argument against the facts about Jesus. I.e., ridicule, like Rush Limbaugh's ridicule of climate change as a hoax. Or Alex Jones saying that school massacre never really happened but was staged, etc. I.e., ignore the evidence and create your own facts of history or science.

But it's also OK to believe the evidence, from those close to the truth, like the historical events, rather than making up our own facts based on our ideology of what the truth ought to be or what events should or should not have happened.




(this Wall of Text to be continued)

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

reply to Unknown Soldier, #26, March 27

What do we really know about Jesus?

(continued from previous Wall of Text)

As Hector Avalos a Bible scholar himself has said, Biblical studies amounts to a specious liberal Christian apologetic.

translation: In asking what we really know about Jesus, we must avoid looking at any evidence from history, because no historical facts can help us answer this question.

Are ALL "studies" specious? All of science and research into anything is "specious"? Is there anything that's not "specious"? ALL literature studies are "specious"? or only biblical studies? How is it that only this one class of literature is "specious" and no others?

I just think for myself and come to my own conclusions regarding what is credible and what isn't. I agree with Hector's estimation about Biblical studies. The work of Bart Ehrman, for example, is especially bad.

So, to answer who Jesus really was we must avoid all biblical studies and especially the most popular biblical scholar and 1st-century Christian origins scholar. Instead the way to answer the question is to think for yourself and create your own conclusions without consideration of anything in the ancient writings about Jesus or about what any scholar on the subject has to say about it.

And to accomplish this, what would be a good way to liberate ourselves from the ancient writings and the scholars on the subject (except Hector Avalos?) so we can free ourselves up to answer the question what "we really know" about Jesus? What "Jesus" are you asking about? from what planet?

He argues that Bible Studies should be banned, censored from the universities as non-legitimate subject matter:

The only mission of biblical studies should be to end biblical studies as we know it.

To cite someone who says the evidence should be censored and banned does not make a good case. Why does someone advocate doing away with all the studies on a particular subject? abolishing all teaching and study of a large category of the ancient literature?

You're misquoting Avalos. To my knowledge he never called for the censorship of evidence.

Maybe "censored" and "banned" is hyperbole, just like excluding books from school libraries or classrooms is called "censorship" by those who want to include those books and impose them onto school children. To call it "censorship" for taxpayers to exclude some books they don't want imposed onto school children is also hyperbole.

It is worse "censorship" to exclude biblical studies from universities than it is for taxpayers to exclude some books they don't like from school libraries and classrooms.

To select out one category of ancient literature, bible writings, and exclude only these from the university is a form of "censorship" worse than excluding some modern ideology-based books from school libraries and classrooms. All the ancient literature is studied in the universities, without any being arbitrarily excluded. The only limiting factor is the demand of students (or lack of demand) who want to enroll in the classes, so maybe some writings are neglected for lack of demand. But there is no current doctrine of singling out one class of writings alone and discriminating against it by having it excluded from universities, as Avalos is demanding the Bible literature be denied to students wanting it because he judges that it's unwholesome material for them, or unsuitable for young impressionable minds and therefore to be withheld from them for their own good.

He's correct that Biblical studies as practiced today is very poor from a scholarly standpoint, . . .

"Biblical studies as practiced today" is a very subjective and unscholarly phrase which means 100 differing things to 100 different scholars. No such meaningless phrase can be the basis for setting any policy about what should be taught in universities. Also "very poor" and "from a scholarly standpoint" is meaningless babble. If you have a legitimate critique of something, give it without hiding behind this jargon.

Obviously there are flaws in any studies, and especially where there are many different beliefs and interpretations and philosophical viewpoints. In many ways the difficult subject matter is more appropriate than the easy wholesome politically-correct literature you would still permit to the students. Do you and Avalos also want to ban Hindu and Chinese literature from those impressionable minds? to ban all the Hindu and Chinese and Islamic literature as "very poor from a scholarly standpoint"? Or is it only the literature which mentions the 1st-century Jesus Christ which is "poor from a scholarly standpoint" and must be suppressed? How did it come about that only this particular literature is "poor from a scholarly standpoint" and no others?

. . . and colleges and universities do their students a disservice by teaching it.

By teaching which version of it? There are many forms of biblical studies and different ways of teaching it. Is this going to be the "Don't say 'Bible' law" or "Don't say 'Jesus Christ' law" like the "Don't say Gay" law in Florida? University students are too immature and impressionable for us to allow them to be exposed to this one particular form of literature?

Why is this one branch of literature, and this one category alone, to be singled out for exclusion because someone's "scholarly standpoint" is offended? At least these students are not required to attend these classes. We can agree that biblical studies should not be a required subject for all students, in order to graduate. But to exclude this one category from everyone, even if they choose it -- how is that not censorship? as much as excluding some ideology-based sex books from 2nd-grade public school classrooms?

So to sum up, those who preach a historical Jesus or anything about him just aren't making a good case. Their evidence is weak, . . .

It is stronger evidence than for most other historical figures. If the historical Jesus is to be excluded because the evidence is not 100% perfect evidence, then you have to also exclude all the other historical figures for whom the evidence is equally weak, or even weaker.

. . . and their reasoning is flawed as I have demonstrated in this post.

All you've demonstrated is that there is no historical case to be made for any historical facts or historical persons, because there is no "strong" evidence or reasoning for any of them.

People can say anything they want about him with no fear of being proved wrong.

No they can't. They are proved wrong again and again. Bart Ehrman, e.g., in his public speeches, likes to boast how he always corrects the mistaken beliefs of his students, who are mostly from the Bible Belt and must have their myths dispelled.

And not everything has to "proved" in order for it to be grounded in good evidence, based on what little is known. It's OK to teach (or "preach") the small amount which is known and try to make good guesses about the rest which is more doubtful. That some is doubtful does not mean it should be suppressed. Much of our lives is based on what is doubtful but still known enough to be able to make good decisions or judgments or guesses.

The vast majority of good decision-making and truth-finding which has improved our lives was done as a result of good guesswork, rather than Absolute 100% Certainty. If all doubtful matters are to be excluded from our thinking and from learning and study, what is there left to focus our minds on? Is this flight away from the Jesus of History and the literature a demand that everyone should withdraw into their innermost Cosmic Self and find shelter only in the Absolute Allness of Perfect Selfhood?

Is it ALL literature, all ancient literature scholarship, which is "flawed" or doesn't make "a good case" and is "weak"? because they impose something onto us from the outside, rather than let you think for yourself and come to your "own conclusions regarding what is credible and what isn't"? Or is it only that literature which mentions Jesus as someone who lived in history which is "flawed" and "weak"? Why would only this particular form of writing be "flawed" and no others?

Maybe you would still permit Plotinus and Existentialism in your utopian perfect university? What about permitting literature which promotes exclusion of all the ancient literature? or exclusion of all scholars who mention the historical Jesus? or exclusion of any literature saying we can learn anything from ancient literature?

 

[Tharmas]

We know that by about 50 AD, Christians were very active and plentiful. Paul tells us so; and we know that by the early 60's Christians in Rome were active and plentiful enough that Emperor Nero regarded them as a threat. In those days there was no Instagram or Twitter to spread stories quickly: we can assume that Christians were becoming active no later than the early 40's, or within a decade of the alleged crucifixion.

Are many, or even most, people gullible, easy to fall for a crackpot hoax? You betcha! It might have been almost as bad in mid-1st century Judea as in post-rational America. But here's the key point that gets overlooked:

There would have been some, probably many, people alive during the time of Jesus' alleged ministry and alleged crucifixion who were also witness to early Christian activity, and were aware that the new cult was based on a non-existent person. They would have told others. Even believers would have been aware of this nay-saying. And yet . . .

Despite that the Gospels go to lengths in attempting to refute some detractors (Could the "resurrected" body have been a different person from Jesus? The mythical Thomas feels the wound with his own hand. Et cetera) there is no indication whatsoever that any contemporaries thought Jesus was fictional.

As for Josephus, his brief mentions testify, not necessarily that a historical Jesus existed, but that Christians existed, along with their foundational documents such as the Gospel of Mark and Paul's genuine epistles. Tacitus in the second century may have been an accurate reporter, but as the British Catholic and ordained deacon Allen Brent argues, Tacitus may have had an axe to grind with regards Nero., and is not necessarily the most trustworthy source.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
. . .
Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned:

I've struck out all but the clauses a consensus believes to be authentic. But strike out the ENTIRE first paragraph, and we're still left to conclude that Josephus thought Jesus existed.

Finally, I don't accept the argument that those Christians of Nero's day were close enough in time to the supposed Passion events to have known if Jesus were fictional. Such an argument assumes that followers of the Christian cult, as it then was, were rational actors who investigated the events for themselves. In a preliterate society knowledge was transmitted largely through rumor and story-telling. Even today, with live television, eyewitness news, investigative reporting etc., there are sizable chunks of the population who sincerely believe that the moon landings were faked, 9/11 was a false flag operation carried out by the CIA, the earth is really flat, Elvis is still alive, Paul McCartney is dead, and many other conterfactual ideas. Just a few months ago a group of believers gathered in Dallas to await the return of JFK to annoint Donald Trump as the true president of the USA.

Please see my comments above. We can stipulate that many people are gullible. But the non-historic case requires an absence of NON-gullible people.

Romans and others were trying to suppress this new cult. If there was any reason to think Jesus was fictional, that would have been on the top of the list of ways to discourage belief. As far as anyone knows, "Jesus is fictional" was an argument never made at that time.

I’m sorry to take so long getting back to you on this, but Real Life intervened and I got distracted.

I’m not arguing about the legitimacy of the two brief mentions of Jesus that Josephus includes, of which I am well aware, nor am I claiming that Christians were unknown in Nero’s Rome.

My point about Josephus is merely that his two brief mentions don’t prove the existence of a Jesus of the Gospels. They merely demonstrate that there were Christians when Josephus wrote, in the nineties of the first century. We don’t know exactly what sources Josephus had regarding Jesus, but the readily available ones include Mark and perhaps the genuine Pauline epistles, not to mention the Christian community of Rome.

In addition, if you checked out that earlier post of mine that I linked to, you would realize that I do not claim that no such person as Jesus existed. I’m perfectly happy to assume such a person, or persons, existed, and perhaps even taught some of the extant stories and parables in the Gospels. My point was more nuanced, that it’s not a question of fiction vs reality. It’s a question of the development of a kernel of reality into a grandiose mythic epic.

The growth of myths and how they permeate human narratives, including histories, fascinates me. Living in Texas as long as I have, the myths surrounding the Alamo and the battles for Texas independence play a large role in my consciousness. No one denies that the Alamo fell, and the names of its defenders are recorded. No one denies that Houston’s army defeated Santa Ana’s army at San Jacinto. But google “The Yellow Rose of Texas.” A recent mini-series dramatizing the history of Texas devoted a credulous episode to her.

 

[steve_bank]

I am pretty sure he was Jewish.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

reply to TomC, #31, March 28


"What do we really know about Jesus?"

A very hypothetical question, if taken seriously, leads to much conjecture, and also to another extended
Wall of Text on the Jesus miracles/resurrection: If it all really happened, then wouldn't there have been riots in the streets of Jerusalem?

skepticalbip: Assume that the Davidians swore and declared that David Koresh appeared to them days after the destruction of the compound in Waco, Texas. That after giving them a message he was taken up into heaven. That they claimed that this proved that he was indeed the "final prophet". Do you really think there would be "tumultuous events and riots in the streets"?

Yes. Absolutely, I do.

Wrong, there'd be no such reaction, because no one ever took any such claims seriously.

The hypothesis above does not suppose that Koresh really did appear or was taken up or was the "final prophet" but only that Davidians claimed this. It doesn't even suppose that anything later was published about it, but only that a small group of disciples made such claims at the time, and no one else took it seriously, and it was forgotten.

Probably there were many small cults like this 2000 years ago making different claims about a leader who had been martyred for a dissident cause, like there are today and down through history. They are forgotten because almost everyone ignored them, in some cases maybe scoffing at the tiny group of fanatics, but never taking them seriously, and they're forgotten. There was no immediate response of any significance, nor anything published later.

This is not analogous to the Jesus case which inspired several written accounts later, from at least 5 different sources. One of these, Paul, began writing of it about 20 years later.

What about earlier? If the claimed event(s) had really happened, would there be tumult or riots in the streets of Jerusalem in the days following? Perhaps there would be something, but how would we know today? If it did happen and there was such a violent response, would it be recorded in written accounts which would survive so we today could know about it?

If so, it assumes there would have to have been some popular or widespread interest in Jesus among the commoners or masses. His popularity would have to be widespread in order to inspire "tumultuous events" or "riots." But did Jesus really have mass popularity? Was Jesus really a popular "leader" who held mass rallies like Trump or Putin or Hitler, or who spoke to mass audiences like FDR?

Were there such popular "leaders" in the ancient world, in the 1st century, e.g.? The closest example would be John the Baptizer, who definitely drew large audiences and preached at them. And he was arrested and martyred (beheaded) by Herod Antipas. Very likely he was more popular, drawing larger crowds, than Jesus. Was there any tumult or rioting after he was martyred? Were there reports of him rising up alive? There are no written accounts saying this. All we have is a claim that Herod Antipas thought wrongly that Jesus was John returning from death. But it's normal for people to imagine a new wonder-person is a resurrected version of someone earlier. No one ever took that literally, but only as a symbol.

How do we explain that Jesus is reported to have risen and appeared to large numbers, whereas John, even more popular and also martyred, did not get this distinction?

The question might be: If Jesus had really risen and appeared alive afterwards (not just rumored, but actually doing this), wouldn't that surely inspire tumult and rioting in the streets? which reaction did not happen, and so the event must not have really happened -- right?

But doesn't this assume that Jesus had a widespread mass following, similar to John's? And it assumes there was no such reaction, when maybe there really was some disturbance like this that wasn't recorded -- we don't know if there was such a reaction or not. The Book of Acts says there were gatherings of the disciples, growing large in number, and that these caused some disturbance and drew the attention of the authorities. And yet this happened not immediately, but a few weeks later. What about immediately, the few days following the reported resurrection?

Was there no such disturbance/public reaction immediately following that spectacular resurrection event? Or was there such a reaction and it just was not later reported in any written accounts about it? not in the Gospels, not in Acts, not in Paul?

A major public disturbance might get reported at some point. Acts mentions the riot in Ephesus, where Paul is condemned for his preaching against idol worship. Philo the Alexandrian mentions riots against the Jews in that city. If there was any such riot in Jerusalem following the Jesus resurrection, would this not eventually get reported in a future written account?

Who would be the rioters? If the disciples themselves did not riot, why assume anyone else would? All the accounts say the disciples were afraid and had retreated, and even after the resurrection appearances they did not do any public demonstration, or go rioting. Not until several weeks later did they begin to do something publicly.

So the best assumption is that there was no rioting in the streets in the days just following the crucifixion. Should there have been if he resurrected as the accounts say?

Why would there be? Why do rioters go on a rampage? What's their motive? We have the example of the rioting silversmiths in Ephesus, against Paul, and the anti-Jewish Alexandrians rioting against the Jews there. In both cases the rioters were offended at something going on which they intended to fix. Rioters usually have a vague idea of what they're against and are trying to defend against. Even though their plan is usually aimless and flawed, they do have a clear picture of what situation they are protesting against. They oppose some evil taking place, and they intend to eradicate that evil and have the enemy put down or killed or run out of town.

And yet, what evil would they be rioting against in Jerusalem just following the Jesus resurrection? What would such rioters be demanding? If believers or sympathizers thought Jesus had resurrected, what more are they demanding that the authorities do? or stop doing? If Jesus resurrected, then he already conquered the evil-doers and put things right. What more is there to fix? Must not any rioters have an idea of what's wrong and needs to be protested against? What evil would they be reversing in this case after the martyr has overcome those in power, defeating them, conquering the death sentence they imposed, reversing it or turning the tables on those in power, and being victorious over them? What's left to riot about?

So in reality, if sympathizers/followers really believed that he rose from the grave, they probably would not riot at all, but would celebrate, and also meditate or ponder the situation for a while to gather their thoughts and decide what they should now do. In other words, they would do exactly what we see described in the Book of Acts and other accounts, describing a period of silence and regrouping, trying to figure out what's to be done next. And NOT going on a riot immediately after he re-appeared to them alive. They would not be angry and desirous of getting some new demands met, as in the case of rioters on a rampage against those in power and trying to put pressure on them or trying to punish them for some crime they got away with. In this case the ones in power have already been defeated by the resurrected one they had wronged.

But yeah, totally.

Had Koresh opposed the government. Then been arrested and publicly executed. Then reappeared and gone on preaching whatever he was preaching. For over a month. Yes, I . . .

Let's set aside this "over a month" detail. It's true that Luke says this in Acts 1, but he also contradicts this in Luke 24, where clearly Jesus departs very soon after, not weeks later. And the other Gospel accounts also seem to assume a short time only, with Mark saying it almost explicitly. Where there's a contradiction, it's best to overrule the minority version, all else being equal. So the "40 days" of Acts 1 is probably not to be taken literally. (The Catholic New American Bible, in the footnote, dismisses the "40 days" as a typical "sacred number" symbol not to be taken literally.)

. . . Yes, I think there would have been enough aftermath to get mentioned in the news.

But there was no "the news" 2000 years ago. But let's assume some word of the Resurrection would spread around, so there'd be whatever reaction we'd expect, if it became widely reported that this happened, and some were believing it. But still, it would not be rioting. And there are both believers and non-believers among those hearing the reports. So, what would the "aftermath" be, if there were the reports, and some believed it and others did not? Why wouldn't those who disbelieved have as much impact as the believers, or more impact? Why wouldn't the believers be afraid to do anything publicly, knowing that there's a large number disbelieving it who would scoff at them?

There is an "aftermath" of sorts mentioned in Acts -- believers trying to convince the mass of public onlookers, and the authorities getting worried and calling in the troublemakers to silence them. But it's only several weeks later, not soon after the crucifixion event. And there's no reason to believe there'd be rioting or tumult, since the believers had no motive to protest against anything. The Acts description contains some blaming the authorities for killing Jesus, but it's a triumphant description, not requiring any new war to be declared against the killers, to undo their crime, to demand justice or impeachment of those guilty.

So, what would be the "aftermath" or fallout from the resurrection event, if it actually happened? What uproar should we expect from someone? from whom? toward what purpose? For the "restless natives" to rise up and cause trouble, they must have some idea of what evil they are opposing or what evildoers they want to punish. Whatever might be the reaction of the believers, there's no reason to think it would be a major public spectacle that "the news" would report, such as the case with rioters and violent insurrectionists.

Even if it were faked somehow.

There are some cases of fake reported in ancient accounts. In fact, fake miracles are more likely to get reported than real ones. Some (non-biblical) accounts report charlatans claiming to do miracles but not actually doing any.

That didn't happen with Jesus. He died and that ended it, . . .

No, if that were the case, then no one today would be talking about it or writing or preaching about it -- and no one over the last 2000 years. It did not end with him dying.

That it all ended is just a conclusion, based only on conjecture. We don't have very strong evidence what happened or didn't happen. The evidence is that the resurrection did happen, but one can argue that it's not enough to satisfy the demand for extra evidence in the case of miracle claims.

. . . and that ended it, until S/Paul came along with his blend of Reformed Judaism and Pagan religious philosophy. That spread in the Pagan world.

But there's no explanation why it spread, since Paul had no talent to persuade them to believe his resurrection claim or convert to Judaism or believe ancient Jewish prophets and his interpretation of them. Pagans were not ripe for resurrection claims or prophecies based on Hebrew Scriptures, i.e., Paul's "according to the Scriptures." The only miracles the Pagan world believed in were those of the ancient deities passed on in ancient legends, not anything about recent wonder-workers rising back to life or raising others back to life. There are no such claims in any pagan literature. All claims of that kind, pagan or Jewish, were viewed as fraudulent and were ignored by any writers. Take Ovid, e.g. Sure he reported miracles -- but only about the far-distant gods and heroes 1000+ years earlier, not about any recent upstart wonder-worker. These were scoffed at by Greeks and Romans alike.

Honestly, I think that the main reason for the synoptic gospels was letting Christians know that Paul isn't an Apostle.

That could not possibly have been Luke's reason, who wrote of the Apostle Paul in his "Acts of the Apostles." Also you can't claim there's one "main reason for the synoptic gospels." They are not that monolithic in their reasons or their interpretation of the events.

Yet it's true that Paul and the Synoptic Gospels seem to contradict each other on a major point: Paul plays down the "works of the Law" in favor of "faith" as being essential, while "the Law" is preached dogmatically in the Gospels as being most important. But also the Gospels play down "the works of the Law" when they have Jesus saying "Your faith has saved you." Why doesn't he say their "works" as well as their faith, both together. So even the Synoptic Gospels seem to contradict themselves, saying at times that "the works of the Law" are essential, but at other times saying "faith" is all that is necessary in order to be saved/healed.

Telling the Jesus Legend, and making sure Christians knew that Paul wasn't there.

John, of course, is a whole different story.

There's no need to insist that Paul totally harmonizes with the Gospels. And nor do the Synoptic Gospels harmonize even with each other. Each author had his own interpretation, and these interpretations conflicted with the others. (Not to mention that the Gospels also contradict themselves, each one, internally.) Including Matthew conflicting with Mark from which Mt quotes extensively. Each one thought he was improving on the earlier interpretations or "Gospels" and that his particular understanding was more correct.

What matters most is the parts where they do agree but which are not repeating something borrowed from the already-existing culture. Much can be argued about the differences and even contradictions among them all. But what's important are the few points of harmonization between them:

• All agree that Jesus resurrected or came back to life after being killed;

• The Gospels all say he did the miracle healing acts, whereas Paul mentions the Resurrection only, ignoring everything about Jesus prior to the night when he was arrested;

• Paul and John repeat that "eternal life" (αιώνια ζωή) is gained only through Christ, or believing in him, repeating this unique Greek term over and over;

• The Synoptics repeat that faith/believing is necessary for the healing miracles to happen, and "your faith has saved you."


None of the above common elements was borrowed from Judaism or paganism or other ancient culture.

These points in common give us a clue what Jesus was really about or what is definite, being unique to the 1st-century Christian writings and not contradicted by anything else.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Reply to Jimmy Higgins, #32, March 28 2022


The miracle reputation of Becket vs. the miracle reputation of Jesus

Becket: The later miracle stories are a result of the already-established fame and repute of the hero legend.

Jesus: The later-established hero worship is a result of the earlier miracle reports.

or: Hero worship followed by "evidence" (Becket) vs. evidence followed by hero-worship (Jesus)

("evidence" = the reports of miracle acts performed)

We know Becket existed. We know Becket was murdered. We know there were claims of miracles after his death. I am now going to worship Becket as the Messiah.

There are thousands/millions of miracle stories from the Middle Ages, all of them (or 99% of them) copycat stories imitating those of Jesus in the Gospel accounts. A miracle-worker bandwagon got started 19 centuries ago as a result of events in the 1st century, setting in motion a miracle/mythologizing pattern which had not existed before 50 or 100 AD. This bandwagon copycat phenomenon probably explains all the fantastic miracle-worker stories (or 99% of them) in the centuries after 100 AD. By contrast, there was no such miracle-story epidemic in the years leading up to the Jesus event of about 30 AD and the subsequent written reports. There are virtually zero such stories (outside the New Testament) during the period of 300 BC to 100 AD, despite a large quantity of literature (e.g. the Dead Sea Scrolls and Greek-Roman literature) which should show some sign of it if there was any such miracle-workers epidemic.

The popular (pagan and Jewish and Eastern) hero myths were traditions which evolved over many centuries, not popping up suddenly as the Jesus miracle healer appears suddenly in the 1st century, unprecedented and documented in the following decades.

Even so, for all reported "supernatural" events, of any period, if you can present the evidence in a certain case, quoting the written accounts which reported it, then it's possible to determine the credibility in this or that case, as we can never rule out the possibility of an exception to the rule, the 1-in-100 or 1-in-1000 case of an unexplained event which stands out against the normal pattern. So let's consider the evidence for the Becket miracles, or other cases, if someone wants to present the evidence by quoting the written accounts about them.

Once the miracle-craze after 100 AD got into full swing centuries later, it's easy to explain how certain saint heroes became mythologized. And it's easy to explain how miracles got attributed to a controversial and widely-recognized hero-martyr figure (which Jesus was not in the 1st century but Becket was in the 12th century). Of course certain ones stand out who no doubt had extra charisma and personality assets leading to long distinguished careers of service in the established Church.

One indicator that a reported miracle is fiction is that the martyr's miracle reputation is based on the already-existing faith of the believers in an ancient miracle legend, plus their firm devotion to their current guru who is practicing the ancient traditions and accumulating these devout followers over a long career. So, who are the ones initially reporting the miracle event or experiencing it?

In the case of Jesus, and especially the victims he healed, it was mainly people who did not know him and were not his disciples or already devotees of a cult he was creating. Those later recording it in writing were believers, i.e., had become believers, but were not direct devotees influenced by his personality. Rather, it was the evidence they had from reports which influenced them, not the personality or charisma of the healer.

If, contrary to the Jesus case, the only ones initially reporting the miracle event are people who were direct disciples or worshipers of the saint-hero, already believing in him after years of being inspired by his charisma or worshiping him in accordance with the ancient traditions, then it fits a normal pattern for them to mythologize him and make a god out of him. In that case the mythologizing is a common and familiar religious pattern, today and for thousands of years, of worshipers or devotees of an ancient religion who respond to their current beloved guru or prophet who inspired them over many years and accumulated hundreds/thousands of devotees over a long career of preaching and inspiring their flock. Or also it's a pattern of devotees of the current priesthood practicing this or that ancient cult tradition (e.g. the Asclepius cult) which became instituted into the culture over many centuries of social evolution.

The veneration of Becket after his martyrdom, and sudden avalanche of miracle stories, could not happen to someone who didn't already have widespread fame and established power to influence thousands of disciples, having been appointed to power over many years of a long public career, inspiring a nation or vast population of worshipers. Many other famous powerful superstar personalities, religious and political, had eventually attained to wide recognition and status as superhuman Messiah-type figures as they became mythologized into miracle heroes after their death, and even before their death in a few cases.

Such public-image status obviously cannot explain the miracle stories of Jesus, which were published and circulating long before he became established as someone of status. Never having any social power or recognition during his lifetime, it wasn't until a century or so after his death that he started to become recognized as someone of importance, i.e., long AFTER the evidence reporting his miracle acts was already circulating. I.e., in this case it was the evidence which caused his later miracle reputation and public image, rather than his status and reputation inspiring the later miracle claims.

Those believing the miracle healing reports about Jesus and recording them in writing were not responding to his popular acclaim and widespread celebrity reputation and long-established public image (which didn't exist yet), but to particular reports they had from enough sources to make the claims credible, in contrast to the normal phenomenon of miracle claims which are 99% fiction and are a later product of his already-established reputation. (This doesn't rule out the possibility of any later mythologizing in the case of Jesus, once his credibility as a miracle healer was established by the abundant evidence.)

But if there is evidence in a particular case, not falling into the normal pattern like the sudden Jesus miracle-worker popping up from nowhere in the 1st century, then we should always look at the evidence from someone claiming this case stands apart from the normal pattern of established popular celebrity figures of widespread influence and power and status in their time. It's not enough to just say there were reported miracle events. Considering the evidence requires looking at each claim and the written accounts reporting what happened (which usually no one wants to do).

But probably there are a few cases historically of someone or some event which stands apart from the normal pattern and remains unexplained -- unlike that of Becket who became famous for reasons which fall within the normal pattern of saint-worship within the Medieval culture which itself evolved out of the peculiar 1st-century miracle phenomenon (reported in the Gospel accounts) which no one has explained.

(Even so, it's still necessary to note the one exception in the Gospel accounts, i.e., a miracle which seems to have been borrowed from the earlier culture -- that of the multiplying the fish and loaves, which seems borrowed from II Kings 4:42-44. Being the one and only exception, standing out conspicuously, this has to be noted as "the exception that makes the rule" -- i.e., the rule that the reported miracle acts of Jesus are something unprecedented and unexplained as part of the already-existing culture, unlike ancient miracle legends generally which evolved in the culture over centuries of tradition and mythologizing.)

 

[steve_bank]

In the Greek-Roman traditions Jesus is a demigod. Human mother god as a father. The son has some but not all of the powers of the god father. The demigod dies in an heroic act.

Yes, Jewish myths are traceable to other cultures.

Who or what is Becket?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

...Jesus is a demigod.

I used that statement years ago on a fundy catholic forum. They'd never heard of their Jesus hero referred to as such. One thing for certain that we know about the protagonist of the gospel stories is that he was a demigod.

 

[TomC]

...Jesus is a demigod.

I used that statement years ago on a fundy catholic forum. They'd never heard of their Jesus hero referred to as such. One thing for certain that we know about the protagonist of the gospel stories is that he was a demigod.

I think "Jesus the demigod" and member of a Trinitarian pantheon is why Christianity was so much more popular amongst pagans than Jews.

Also, the Messiah part was important. In Jesus' day, everyone knew what a Messiah really was. A human warrior-king who would rescue The Chosen People from pagan oppression and return them to their rightful place as a world power. Even the Romans knew that. That's why I think Jesus was a violent anti-Roman activist. Either a freedom fighter or a terrorist, depending on your attitude towards Roman occupation. The Romans dealt with him accordingly. And the Jews knew that He'd not accomplished the one goal of a real Messiah.
Tom

 

[steve_bank]

The literary analysis I read went further. The gospels in the day were in the form of what we might today call action adventure fiction. The Acts can be thought of as the sequel that ties up the loose ends.

It was intended as sensational hype to attract converts.

Right from the start whoever Jesus was, there was exploitation for personal gain. Competition for converts and money.

Paul says there are bogus preachers of Jesus but hey dude I am the REAL DEAL purveyor of Jesus.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The literary analysis I read went further. The gospels in the day were in the form of what we might today call action adventure fiction. The Acts can be thought of as the sequel that ties up the loose ends.

It was intended as sensational hype to attract converts.

Right from the start whoever Jesus was, there was exploitation for personal gain. Competition for converts and money.

Paul says there are bogus preachers of Jesus but hey dude I am the REAL DEAL purveyor of Jesus.

That's one of the popular aspects of the christian religion, everybody gets to invent their own version of Jesus. I'm sure other religions did the same thing.